Services are one of the defining elements for research infrastructures, but how to define a service is less clear. In the broadest sense any support for research practices at different stages (as described in the Scholarly Primitives) can be perceived as a service. If we follow the definition of research infrastructures as knowledge infrastructures [1] than both support of the staff working in and with the infrastructure and all the equipment they work with potentially count as service. In DARIAH's strategic plan, services are defined exactly in this broad sense. As DARIAH pillars via which services are provided we find the Marketplace; Working groups; Foresight; and Education/Training [2]. In each of the pillars the provision of the service materialises by a combination of IT based components and other forms of support (such as enabling activities, knowledge exchange, network activities, funding etc.). What is further agreed upon is that (a) research infrastructures for post-modern research are usually distributed, networked structures and that (b) research infrastructures follow a complex architecture with different roles, stakeholders and perspectives involved [3]. For the daily practice of an ERIC as DARIAH is it important to shape a shared understanding how the high-level definition of the services (DARIAH pillar's) translates into concrete services as build in member countries (DARIAH contributions), by projects (pilots of services), in Working groups, and other actors inside of DARIAH (as by participating institutions). This paper explores different ways to define and order services, applying different dimensions (such as geographic spread, addressed knowledge domain, maturity, envisioned audience, etc.). We start from existing definitions of services as for the European Open Science Cloud, or IT services in general, zoom into current DARIAH-wide applied definitions (as from projects such as HaS, DESIR and SSHOC), and test them with existing services (as propagated via the DARIAH website, or collected in the DARIAH contribution tool). By a clearer understanding of the different nature of services we aim to support decision of what services to foster, innovate, and maintain on which level, by which means, and in which time frame.
\n\nAcknowledgement: This abstract bases on the draft White paper ‘Towards a concise DARIAH service strategy' with contributions from DARIAH DCO and JRC members.
", "languages": [ { "id": "eng", "title": { "en": "English" } } ], "publication_date": "2020-11-25", "publisher": "Zenodo", "resource_type": { "id": "presentation", "title": { "de": "Pr\u00e4sentation", "en": "Presentation" } }, "rights": [ { "description": { "en": "The Creative Commons Attribution license allows re-distribution and re-use of a licensed work on the condition that the creator is appropriately credited." }, "icon": "cc-by-icon", "id": "cc-by-4.0", "props": { "scheme": "spdx", "url": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode" }, "title": { "en": "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International" } } ], "subjects": [ { "subject": "Research Infrastructure" }, { "subject": "service" }, { "subject": "ERIC" }, { "subject": "DARIAH" } ], "title": "Services in a research infrastructure - an attempt to review current definitions and their implications" }, "parent": { "access": { "owned_by": { "user": "74270" } }, "communities": { "default": "b6ff726b-f8bc-49fa-b676-87e9f9d759ac", "entries": [ { "access": { "member_policy": "open", "members_visibility": "public", "record_submission_policy": "open", "review_policy": "open", "visibility": "public" }, "children": { "allow": false }, "created": "2020-04-23T05:37:26.082804+00:00", "custom_fields": {}, "deletion_status": { "is_deleted": false, "status": "P" }, "id": "b6ff726b-f8bc-49fa-b676-87e9f9d759ac", "links": {}, "metadata": { "curation_policy": "", "page": "In this community we present abstracts and outcomes of the DARIAH Annual Event 2020 which will take place virtually in the fall.
\r\n\r\nScholarly Primitives
\r\n\r\nIt has been twenty years since John Unsworth first formulated scholarly primitives as a set of recursive and interrelated functions that form the foundations of research activities across disciplines, theoretical frameworks or eras. Ever since, these basic scholarly functions -- discovering, annotating, comparing, referring, sampling, illustrating and representing -- have proved to be useful not only for categorizing the fundamentals of knowledge production in the humanities, but also as a framework for conceptualizing Digital Humanities tools which support these processes.
\r\n\r\nThe time is ripe to revisit and freshly interrogate both the notion and the scope of scholarly primitives. To what extent does this particular set of scholarly primitives still correspond to our understanding of what humanities scholars do on a day-to-day basis? Has our understanding of research workflows changed over time significantly enough to require a new classification? Can we -- and should we -- put our conceptualization of scholarly primitives into a historical perspective as an expression of a particular stage in the development of Digital Humanities? Have scholarly primitives been conceptually robust enough to keep up with the field, which now includes big data, visual analytics, machine learning and artificial intelligence? Finally, are scholarly primitives -- and the way we speak of research as we build tools to support it -- free of ideology and bias?
\r\n\r\nThese theoretical questions frame and encapsulate the challenges of building a digital research infrastructure and developing state-of-the art tools that aid humanities scholars in their work. They make us think about whether research infrastructures are capable of supporting each stage of the research process and how we can best assess their scope and effectiveness. They also bring into focus the question of whether the development of new tools and methods is simply changing the practicalities of conducting research, or whether it is also expanding the horizons of knowledge production in the humanities in more fundamental ways. What are the gaps and discontinuities in our understanding of scholarly primitives and, more generally, DH tools and methods that we should address in order to build comprehensive, flexible, dynamic, open and sustainable research infrastructures?
\r\n\r\nDARIAH is happy to announce John Unsworth as keynote speaker at the Annual Event 2020.
\r\n\r\nIn this community we present abstracts and outcomes of the DARIAH Annual Event 2020 which will take place in November 10-13, 2020 in Zagreb, Croatia.
\r\n\r\nScholarly Primitives
\r\n\r\nIt has been twenty years since John Unsworth first formulated scholarly primitives as a set of recursive and interrelated functions that form the foundations of research activities across disciplines, theoretical frameworks or eras. Ever since, these basic scholarly functions -- discovering, annotating, comparing, referring, sampling, illustrating and representing -- have proved to be useful not only for categorizing the fundamentals of knowledge production in the humanities, but also as a framework for conceptualizing Digital Humanities tools which support these processes.
\r\n\r\nThe time is ripe to revisit and freshly interrogate both the notion and the scope of scholarly primitives. To what extent does this particular set of scholarly primitives still correspond to our understanding of what humanities scholars do on a day-to-day basis? Has our understanding of research workflows changed over time significantly enough to require a new classification? Can we -- and should we -- put our conceptualization of scholarly primitives into a historical perspective as an expression of a particular stage in the development of Digital Humanities? Have scholarly primitives been conceptually robust enough to keep up with the field, which now includes big data, visual analytics, machine learning and artificial intelligence? Finally, are scholarly primitives -- and the way we speak of research as we build tools to support it -- free of ideology and bias?
\r\n\r\nThese theoretical questions frame and encapsulate the challenges of building a digital research infrastructure and developing state-of-the art tools that aid humanities scholars in their work. They make us think about whether research infrastructures are capable of supporting each stage of the research process and how we can best assess their scope and effectiveness. They also bring into focus the question of whether the development of new tools and methods is simply changing the practicalities of conducting research, or whether it is also expanding the horizons of knowledge production in the humanities in more fundamental ways. What are the gaps and discontinuities in our understanding of scholarly primitives and, more generally, DH tools and methods that we should address in order to build comprehensive, flexible, dynamic, open and sustainable research infrastructures?
\r\n\r\nDARIAH is happy to announce John Unsworth and Kristin Veel as keynote speakers at the Annual Event 2020.
", "title": "Scholarly Primitives - DARIAH Annual Event 2020" }, "revision_id": 0, "slug": "dariahannualevent2020", "updated": "2022-05-12T13:42:44.429430+00:00" } ], "ids": [ "b6ff726b-f8bc-49fa-b676-87e9f9d759ac" ] }, "id": "4290571", "pids": { "doi": { "client": "datacite", "identifier": "10.5281/zenodo.4290571", "provider": "datacite" } } }, "pids": { "doi": { "client": "datacite", "identifier": "10.5281/zenodo.4301728", "provider": "datacite" }, "oai": { "identifier": "oai:zenodo.org:4301728", "provider": "oai" } }, "revision_id": 5, "stats": { "all_versions": { "data_volume": 413527534.0, "downloads": 226, "unique_downloads": 214, "unique_views": 279, "views": 289 }, "this_version": { "data_volume": 340231103.0, "downloads": 195, "unique_downloads": 185, "unique_views": 205, "views": 214 } }, "status": "published", "swh": {}, "updated": "2024-07-19T12:55:55.368037+00:00", "versions": { "index": 2, "is_latest": true } }